Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T01:26:08.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perinatal mortality, growth and survival to weaning in offspring of rats reared on diets moderately deficient in protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

M. R. Turner
M. R. Turner
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Unit, Medical Research Council of Great Britain, and Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The reproductive performance of rats reared from weaning on a moderately protein-deficient (LP) diet containing 80 g casein/kg, or on a control diet (HP) containing 250 g casein/kg has been studied. Although the rate of growth was reduced in LP animals, these rats eventually achieved the same adult weight and appearance as the controls.

2. Weight gain during the first 2 weeks of gestation was similar in the two dietary groups, but during the 3rd week HP rats gained twice as much weight as the LP animals.

3. Viable litters were produced by 78% of the HP rats mated but by only 33% of LP rats. Most of the offspring which died did so during or soon after birth; so the perinatal mortality for the offspring of LP rats was 73% compared with only 26% for control rats. After the first few days of life, the chance of survival of HP and LP offspring was similar.

4. At birth the mean body-weight of the offspring was 5.4 g for HP offspring and 4.7 g for LP offspring. However, the mean body-weight at birth of viable offspring was similar whether they were from HP or LP rats (HP 5.6 g; LP 5.3 g). At weaning, HP offspring weighed 31.2 g and LP offspring only 13.3 g.

5. When the HP diet was given to LP rats at parturition, the viable offspring achieved a weaning weight of 31.5 g, but there was no decrease in the perinatal mortality.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1973 , pp. 139 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1973

References

REFERENCES

Antanov, A. M. (1947). J. Pediat. 30, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aschkenasy-Lelu, P. & Aschkenasy, A. (1957). Archs Sci. physiol. II, 125.Google Scholar
Chow, B. F. & Lee, C. J. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goettsch, M. (1949). Arcks Biochem. 21, 289.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1944). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2, 8.Google Scholar
Jones, J. H. & Foster, C. (1942). J. Nutr. 24, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naismith, D. J. (1966). Metabolism 15, 582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naismith, D. J. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, M. M. & Evans, H. M. (1953). J. Nutr. 51, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, B. S. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1967). Maternal Child Care 3, 539.Google Scholar
Platt, B. S. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1968). Devl Med. Child Neurol. 10, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. A. (1947). J. Pediat. 30, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. J. C. & Sheppard, H. G. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. R. (1972). Nutr. Rep. int. 5, 1.Google Scholar
Venkatachalam, P. S. & Ramanathan, K. S. (1964). J. Nutr. 84, 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & Cowen, J. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar